Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-11-15-Speech-2-178"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-11-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals)2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20051115.25.2-178"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-11-15-Speech-2-1792
lpv:speaker	lp:Johannes Blokland2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; TRAN (2004-09-15--2007-01-14)3 member; LIBE (2004-09-14--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2004-11-18--2006-12-12)3 vice-chair; ENVI (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 treasurer; IND/DEM (2004-07-26--2007-02-12)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Armenia, EU-Azerbaijan and EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committees (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 unknown; ChristenUnie - Staatkundig Gereformeerde Parti (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, rarely will a proposal be discussed here that is as complicated as this one. The Commission’s REACH proposal must be improved. We are all agreed on this, but, when it comes to how this improvement is to be carried out, opinion in this House is very much divided. On 4 October, we in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety reached an acceptable compromise. Although aspects that are important to me, including risk and volume-based registration, have not made it to the finishing line, I still voted in favour at the final vote. I am now also endorsing in the plenary the compromise that was reached in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. In my view, the ‘Sacconi-Nassauer compromise’ is inadequate. With this approach, we lose the results achieved in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety to some extent. Nevertheless, I should like to express my appreciation to the rapporteur for his approach and good cooperation. Given the little support it received at the final vote, I can understand why he chose his approach after the vote in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. I can endorse the thrust of the Rescue Reach Plan of the Group of the Greens, although I do not support the removal of use and exposure categories. I should like to draw you attention to a number of points again, because I consider them so important. An appropriate solution must be found to the problem of inorganic substances. Metals, ores and concentrates cannot be dealt with in the same manner as organic chemical substances. I expect the Council to address this problem and to have resolved it by second reading. The burden on small and medium-sized enterprises must be manageable. Following the vote, another cost and benefit analysis must be carried out in order to map out the effects of the vote on the burden on SMEs. The forming of consortia must be promoted, partly in order to keep the costs down. Volume and risk go hand in hand. It is precisely about the most dangerous substances that most information is required, and these need not involve large volumes. That remains a major problem. Finally, whilst animal tests must be avoided where possible, progress remains necessary. If this wish list is fulfilled, I think we will be well on our way of achieving our goal."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph